CEO says unmanned flights are 5 years away

ChasenSFO said:
And I'm sure the ever alert PIC would be so quick to use their human capabilities to react to and correct a problem when ish hits the fan when for the last several hours they have been sitting in a chair doing not so much as transmitting to ATC or dialing in a heading change. It's a bad idea, and if it happens, people will die an otherwise preventable death.
Click to expand...

Not really. Read "Digital Apollo" it's a great book that explains where the best choice for the future is - man augmented by machine. Whether or not that's the future we'll get remains to be seen.
 
ppragman said:
Once the software is good enough and the hardware is mature I could totally see it. Think about this, you run a flow, physically say, "before takeoff checklist" and the computer gives you a verbal "call and response" checklist. If you miss anything, the computer knows the switch positions and tells you what you missed. You get workload "dense" in the cockpit, you can't be bothered doing the manual act of flying the airplane right now, you literally say "RJ, you have the flight controls," and the airplane takes over flying the last assigned route or heading. It's coming, the software for this will be there, and sooner than most people think. Once speech recognition gets to the point where it can recognize context (which probably isn't that far off) we're going to see an explosion in this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
I see your argument but first you said the software will be there (assuming you meant soon) and then a few sentences later you stated that the software (which isn't even implemented or created in a cockpit atmosphere yet) isn't far off from recognizing on it's own without a cockpit voice?

So how can you argue that it'll be implemented soon and then argue that it's already good enough that it's not far off from running itself?

That's exactly like these click bait articles. A small twin engine airplane hasn't even gotten approval yet and then these "journalists" and "aviation experts" claim commercial airliners are already around the corner? What happens if the unmanned Cessna's fail?

The only people who are optimistic about a 121 unmanned cockpit are the ones who are pushing away all the negative comments and only posting the positive results. Your ground crew isn't even automated yet for crying out loud. Once that becomes full automation then maybe it'll sound more plausible for a 121 cockpit....so in my argument...not soon.

Sure are optimistic for technology this huge to be created and implemented this fast when half the general public around the globe still isn't comfortable with their pilot leaving the cockpit to go to the bathroom after GermanWings. Seems we're in a video game world and forgot about the peoples perceptions and practicality of the technology. Just because it's there doesn't mean it'll be used.
 
PositionAndHold said:
Just a couple questions, do you mean single pilot with a remote operator on the ground? If so, as a former drone driver do you think it's feasible to have one remote operator monitoring 5-10 flights at once? You'd have to do that to gain any real savings. If you have a one to one, remote operator to flight ratio, the remote operator might as well be in the plane.

I ask because part 25 airplanes are built with multiple redundancies for all critical systems. Why bother removing that redundancy in the cockpit? Just to save a few bucks? Maybe a purpose built single pilot airliner would save some weight not having dual controls, a second seat etc. How much of that weight saving would be eaten up by the added remote pilot/monitoring systems? I'm just not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. It might be over a huge fleet of purpose built single pilot airplanes, but not a retrofit of existing two pilot airliners. Not flaming at all, just curious of your opinion.
Click to expand...

The added weight to the aircraft could be measured in tens of pounds. It would take three shoe-box sized components to control the aircraft, everything else already exists on most passenger jets. The heaviest part of the system would be Satcom gear and that would pretty much be a wash once you took out the pilot, his O2, his seat, baggage and never slimming backside.

What happened to the FE/FO? The same thing that will happen to the FO/Dispatcher, their duties will be combined.

The first thing that will happen is you will see a highly structured change to flight schedules. With unmanned aircraft you will be able to build departures, enroute, and arrivals, think RVSM to the extreme. The aircraft will be programed to auto-sequence to maintain X miles in trail, Z horizontal, and Y vertical separation. Weather deviations will be handled by the "pilot monitoring" along additional pre-planned routes. In the event of an aircraft needing "15 right for buildups" the pilot on board will request it and the "FO" monitoring on the ground will adjust the trailing flight plans as required with just a click and drag of the mouse. When this starts to happen I'll drop my childish resistance to the word "drone" since the planes will behave as if they were worker bees chasing after pollen.

I see the limiting factor right now as economic, not functional. Satellite bandwidth is stupid expensive right now, to the tune of $75k per month for enough baud for three aircraft. As space becomes more privatized that cost will drop like a greased safe. Once BLOS technologies become economically feasible the push will begin, all in the name of safety and golden parachutes.

The pilot on board will retain PIC authority with the main command and control will come from the ground but he will always be able to override. Because there is a pilot monitoring on board the system, and the FAA, will allow for the ground based crew to monitor multiple aircraft at once much like a dispatch office does today. No one bats at a flight follower looking at multiple aircraft on a plasma screen today, I don't foresee that changing at all. The only difference will be they have access to the aircraft's chocolate bar and all functions required to fly it.

In the event of an IFE both sides will utilize CRM and a specific training program that allows both sides to work together to accomplish a common goal; the safe outcome of the flight.

For example, if a school bus full of nuns runs into the GDT then both the pilot on board and crew on the ground will follow a script to re-establish communication. Once communication is re-established the flight will continue as normal. If communication is not re-established then there are two possible outcomes. First, and most likely, the pilot on board will complete the flight as a conventional flight. If some how the pilot on board were to become incapacitated AND comms were lost I can assure you that the plane can still make it's intended point of landing and hit it's touch down spot within 1.5 meters. One of my UAVs had three autonomous lost comm landing procedures and none of those were anything other than mind blowing. They hit the touch down point every time with out fail, only two of those modes require GPS. Hell, if you could establish the proper comms with the aircraft a teenager with a futaba could land the plane. No, I'm not joking, that was backup number four.

Each airport of intended landing will have launch and recovery teams that have, and use, full functionality to fly the aircraft through all phases of flight. Once they're done with it they hand it off to another site using either LOS comms or Satcom. Even the "slow" Satcoms are down to 2 second lags for control inputs.

For other IFE's the plane can be programmed to do everything without anyone having to take any action. Aileron fail? Ok, one of two central computers automatically "fails" the opposite aileron to the same angle so that asymmetric lift conditions don't develop. Spoilerons and the other set of ailerons take over. If two sets fail then the flaps become ailerons.

If you subscribe to the "two is one, one is none" way of thinking you'll like UAVs. The larger and more capable aircraft have backups for their backups for their backups. Preds, Reapers, and Global Hawks don't just fall out of the sky. Most often when they crash it's because of pilot error, just like manned aircraft.

Five years ago the ATOL technologies were fantastically, the equipment was reliable, and the race to the bottom hadn't started for operators. At this point only one of those has changed.
 
ppragman said:
Not really. Read "Digital Apollo" it's a great book that explains where the best choice for the future is - man augmented by machine. Whether or not that's the future we'll get remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Right, because a system where people start their 121 careers assisted by a computer rather than soaking in the PIC authority like sponge off of all the human Captain's they fly with before assuming command one day is going to create a safe generation of pilots who will be able to over-ride the system when the ish hits the fan after a career of near 100% automation dependency. Maybe it wouldn't be a huge issue at first with the glut of pilots who have flown real airplanes, but look at the average time someone acts in various flying capacities before acting as PIC at a major US airline. Usually decades. When the career progression is from light piston(if even) to career systems monitor, there will be some serious airmanship and aeronautical decision making issues when they're needed most. I mean, look at some of the recent crashes with 2 pilots in a "hands on" airplane that is still trying to protect you from yourself.

I see your argument, but I still don't think it's safe. Especially when the first few would be initially mixed in with everything else in the sky like GA and traditional aircraft. And I guess the purser in a pilotless plane would also be tasked with captains authority on the bajillion things that can go wrong(and not be forseen) and require human intervention and reaction the whole way through in a pilotless aircraft.
 
Last edited:
esa17 said:
The added weight to the aircraft could be measured in tens of pounds. It would take three shoe-box sized components to control the aircraft, everything else already exists on most passenger jets. The heaviest part of the system would be Satcom gear and that would pretty much be a wash once you took out the pilot, his O2, his seat, baggage and never slimming backside.

What happened to the FE/FO? The same thing that will happen to the FO/Dispatcher, their duties will be combined.

The first thing that will happen is you will see a highly structured change to flight schedules. With unmanned aircraft you will be able to build departures, enroute, and arrivals, think RVSM to the extreme. The aircraft will be programed to auto-sequence to maintain X miles in trail, Z horizontal, and Y vertical separation. Weather deviations will be handled by the "pilot monitoring" along additional pre-planned routes. In the event of an aircraft needing "15 right for buildups" the pilot on board will request it and the "FO" monitoring on the ground will adjust the trailing flight plans as required with just a click and drag of the mouse. When this starts to happen I'll drop my childish resistance to the word "drone" since the planes will behave as if they were worker bees chasing after pollen.

I see the limiting factor right now as economic, not functional. Satellite bandwidth is stupid expensive right now, to the tune of $75k per month for enough baud for three aircraft. As space becomes more privatized that cost will drop like a greased safe. Once BLOS technologies become economically feasible the push will begin, all in the name of safety and golden parachutes.

The pilot on board will retain PIC authority with the main command and control will come from the ground but he will always be able to override. Because there is a pilot monitoring on board the system, and the FAA, will allow for the ground based crew to monitor multiple aircraft at once much like a dispatch office does today. No one bats at a flight follower looking at multiple aircraft on a plasma screen today, I don't foresee that changing at all. The only difference will be they have access to the aircraft's chocolate bar and all functions required to fly it.

In the event of an IFE both sides will utilize CRM and a specific training program that allows both sides to work together to accomplish a common goal; the safe outcome of the flight.

For example, if a school bus full of nuns runs into the GDT then both the pilot on board and crew on the ground will follow a script to re-establish communication. Once communication is re-established the flight will continue as normal. If communication is not re-established then there are two possible outcomes. First, and most likely, the pilot on board will complete the flight as a conventional flight. If some how the pilot on board were to become incapacitated AND comms were lost I can assure you that the plane can still make it's intended point of landing and hit it's touch down spot within 1.5 meters. One of my UAVs had three autonomous lost comm landing procedures and none of those were anything other than mind blowing. They hit the touch down point every time with out fail, only two of those modes require GPS. Hell, if you could establish the proper comms with the aircraft a teenager with a futaba could land the plane. No, I'm not joking, that was backup number four.

Each airport of intended landing will have launch and recovery teams that have, and use, full functionality to fly the aircraft through all phases of flight. Once they're done with it they hand it off to another site using either LOS comms or Satcom. Even the "slow" Satcoms are down to 2 second lags for control inputs.

For other IFE's the plane can be programmed to do everything without anyone having to take any action. Aileron fail? Ok, one of two central computers automatically "fails" the opposite aileron to the same angle so that asymmetric lift conditions don't develop. Spoilerons and the other set of ailerons take over. If two sets fail then the flaps become ailerons.

If you subscribe to the "two is one, one is none" way of thinking you'll like UAVs. The larger and more capable aircraft have backups for their backups for their backups. Preds, Reapers, and Global Hawks don't just fall out of the sky. Most often when they crash it's because of pilot error, just like manned aircraft.

Five years ago the ATOL technologies were fantastically, the equipment was reliable, and the race to the bottom hadn't started for operators. At this point only one of those has changed.
Click to expand...

None of that sounds cheaper than just having an FO, hell it seems like you're adding more people, more systems, more points of failure. It would appear that your argument is that the beancounters/management will find the technology more attractive for reasons of central command and control verse simple money saving economics. Either way very interesting thoughts, perhaps you'll be one of those shaping the architecture of how the NAS operates in the not so distant future.
 
Last edited:
Soku39 said:
None of that sounds cheaper than just having an FO, hell it seems like you're adding more people, more systems, more points of failure. It would appear that your argument is that the beancounters/management will find the technology more attractive for reasons of central command and control verse simple money saving economics. Either way very interesting thoughts, perhaps you'll be one of those shaping the architecture of how the NAS operates in the not so distant future.
Click to expand...

Acquisition costs are always the toughest pill to swallow but it really won't be that big of an issue. The additional control boxes will cost about $30k in total and a great deal of airplanes already have Satcom capabilities already.

I forgot to mention the civilian passenger applications will require less bandwidth since you're not transmitting anything other than telemetry back to the GCS. No high resolution video save a few lipstick cameras and no electronic payloads to monitor. That's a cost savings right there.

Funny thing about the FAA, the folks in their unmanned office have little to no unmanned experience. I know about a dozen guys that have similar experience to mine and the FAA won't take our calls. Last time I called their unmanned office for clarification on a operational issue they just played the hold-and-transfer game.
 
Why not just have a tablet in the hand connected to the systems and you just push a button like "Electrical Power up" and the aircraft starts apu, etc by itself according to the checklist and the pilot just verifies that everything worked and that all systems are operative. Next thing you click "engine start" after you get clearance etc. I could see that coming in like 50 years. But not anytime soon.
 
Once the processing power is greater than the human brain, the whole debate is moot. The computer will be better than any human at anything, including flying. Got a few decades to wait though.
 
**caution societal/political rant**

This country manages to F'up everything. We can't keep from stepping on our cranks for one minute. We have to dumb down everything we do to the lowest common denominator. This will get jacked up somehow.

Rant over.
image.jpg
 
I think were missing the view from the passengers eyes. Would they willingly board an airplane knowing theyre putting their lives in the hands of a computer? It could be the the greatest thing ever built but I doubt anyone would get on.
 
Stryker172 said:
Would they willingly board an airplane knowing theyre putting their lives in the hands of a computer?
Click to expand...

Naw cuz. Homie ain't playin that.

There is nothing that sounds or appears remotely exciting about flying on a passenger drone aircraft. I'm sorta sure that in the end, operations would be safe and probably heavy in regulations and what not, however, the gray areas are far to vast for my comfort levels.
I trust some technology and I don't trust some technology.

If I had a choice between a Drone, fly by wire aircraft or a old smokey DC-3 with almost zero luxury, I'd chose flying with the crates of live chickens and 2 goats.
A DC-3, now THAT is style!!! ;)
 
Last edited:
esa17 said:
The added weight to the aircraft could be measured in tens of pounds. It would take three shoe-box sized components to control the aircraft, everything else already exists on most passenger jets. The heaviest part of the system would be Satcom gear and that would pretty much be a wash once you took out the pilot, his O2, his seat, baggage and never slimming backside.

What happened to the FE/FO? The same thing that will happen to the FO/Dispatcher, their duties will be combined.

The first thing that will happen is you will see a highly structured change to flight schedules. With unmanned aircraft you will be able to build departures, enroute, and arrivals, think RVSM to the extreme. The aircraft will be programed to auto-sequence to maintain X miles in trail, Z horizontal, and Y vertical separation. Weather deviations will be handled by the "pilot monitoring" along additional pre-planned routes. In the event of an aircraft needing "15 right for buildups" the pilot on board will request it and the "FO" monitoring on the ground will adjust the trailing flight plans as required with just a click and drag of the mouse. When this starts to happen I'll drop my childish resistance to the word "drone" since the planes will behave as if they were worker bees chasing after pollen.

I see the limiting factor right now as economic, not functional. Satellite bandwidth is stupid expensive right now, to the tune of $75k per month for enough baud for three aircraft. As space becomes more privatized that cost will drop like a greased safe. Once BLOS technologies become economically feasible the push will begin, all in the name of safety and golden parachutes.

The pilot on board will retain PIC authority with the main command and control will come from the ground but he will always be able to override. Because there is a pilot monitoring on board the system, and the FAA, will allow for the ground based crew to monitor multiple aircraft at once much like a dispatch office does today. No one bats at a flight follower looking at multiple aircraft on a plasma screen today, I don't foresee that changing at all. The only difference will be they have access to the aircraft's chocolate bar and all functions required to fly it.

In the event of an IFE both sides will utilize CRM and a specific training program that allows both sides to work together to accomplish a common goal; the safe outcome of the flight.

For example, if a school bus full of nuns runs into the GDT then both the pilot on board and crew on the ground will follow a script to re-establish communication. Once communication is re-established the flight will continue as normal. If communication is not re-established then there are two possible outcomes. First, and most likely, the pilot on board will complete the flight as a conventional flight. If some how the pilot on board were to become incapacitated AND comms were lost I can assure you that the plane can still make it's intended point of landing and hit it's touch down spot within 1.5 meters. One of my UAVs had three autonomous lost comm landing procedures and none of those were anything other than mind blowing. They hit the touch down point every time with out fail, only two of those modes require GPS. Hell, if you could establish the proper comms with the aircraft a teenager with a futaba could land the plane. No, I'm not joking, that was backup number four.

Each airport of intended landing will have launch and recovery teams that have, and use, full functionality to fly the aircraft through all phases of flight. Once they're done with it they hand it off to another site using either LOS comms or Satcom. Even the "slow" Satcoms are down to 2 second lags for control inputs.

For other IFE's the plane can be programmed to do everything without anyone having to take any action. Aileron fail? Ok, one of two central computers automatically "fails" the opposite aileron to the same angle so that asymmetric lift conditions don't develop. Spoilerons and the other set of ailerons take over. If two sets fail then the flaps become ailerons.

If you subscribe to the "two is one, one is none" way of thinking you'll like UAVs. The larger and more capable aircraft have backups for their backups for their backups. Preds, Reapers, and Global Hawks don't just fall out of the sky. Most often when they crash it's because of pilot error, just like manned aircraft.

Five years ago the ATOL technologies were fantastically, the equipment was reliable, and the race to the bottom hadn't started for operators. At this point only one of those has changed.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I agree with some others here, it seems to be adding as much cost/complication they would be trying to remove. A few things you mention already exist. Such as the aileron malfunction. In the Lear I fly now, if a jammed aileron were to happen, you simply disconnect the yoke mechanically from the ailerons and use the spoilers for roll control. A simple mechanical lever. Same with a jammed elevator. It splits in half and you control pitch with the side that is not jammed.

The other part about aircraft separation. We could do it right now. I go direct for 1,200-1,300 miles some times, only to hold at the destination. The problem is, we can only launch and recover so many aircraft on a single strip of concrete. No matter if human or computer flown. That's the major bottle neck. Like you mentioned, add any weather in the mix and any thing is possible. What you seem to describe is the current relationship we have with controllers. Need 5-10 degrees right, they see if you're able, if so, let you do it and adjust any in-trail spacing as needed. I'm just not seeing how a single pilot airplane would solve some of these issues.
 
esa17 said:
Acquisition costs are always the toughest pill to swallow but it really won't be that big of an issue. The additional control boxes will cost about $30k in total and a great deal of airplanes already have Satcom capabilities already.

I forgot to mention the civilian passenger applications will require less bandwidth since you're not transmitting anything other than telemetry back to the GCS. No high resolution video save a few lipstick cameras and no electronic payloads to monitor. That's a cost savings right there.

Funny thing about the FAA, the folks in their unmanned office have little to no unmanned experience. I know about a dozen guys that have similar experience to mine and the FAA won't take our calls. Last time I called their unmanned office for clarification on a operational issue they just played the hold-and-transfer game.
Click to expand...
$30K? No way, not once, not ever. The installation without parts would probably cost more. The cost to automate a Cirrus, which already has some of the required technology, and certify it to carry 4 non-pilot passengers would likely exceed the cost of 2 new SR-22s.
 
GypsyPilot said:
Yep. Until one crashes. Then what?
Click to expand...

Same thing that happens when one crashes now, big news story, lots of pictures of EMS vehicles next to a bunch of twisted metal on the front page of the paper, and the next day everyone goes flying again.
 
Soku39 said:
Same thing that happens when one crashes now, big news story, lots of pictures of EMS vehicles next to a bunch of twisted metal on the front page of the paper, and the next day everyone goes flying again.
Click to expand...

Maybe in a generation or two. Do you really think that people who buy satellite TV services or take their computers to a repair shop are going to put their flip-flops and hawaiian shirts on and pile in to the back of an airplane driven by a computer? You're mad as a Mexican's dog. The people who ride around in the back of the bus, by and large, are not the people who watch Ted Talks. If I were 20 years younger and just getting in to this mess, I might worry about what might happen as I approached retirement. But if you're over, say, 30, "computer took mah jerb" ought to be right down there around "Asteroid headed our way and Ben Affleck is too busy filming Batman" on your list of concerns.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Maybe in a generation or two. Do you really think that people who buy satellite TV services or take their computers to a repair shop are going to put their flip-flops and hawaiian shirts on and pile in to the back of an airplane driven by a computer? You're mad as a Mexican's dog. The people who ride around in the back of the bus, by and large, are not the people who watch Ted Talks. If I were 20 years younger and just getting in to this mess, I might worry about what might happen as I approached retirement. But if you're over, say, 30, "computer took mah jerb" ought to be right down there around "Asteroid headed our way and Ben Affleck is too busy filming Batman" on your list of concerns.
Click to expand...

27 years old and fearful enough of the concept and future of work, my career and the direction of the world in general that I probably won't gave kids.

Edit: and I fly for a regional in the Southeast, even your average country bumpkin and 80 year old great grandma has an iPhone in their pocket. It won't take much to sway public opinion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top